h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Glad someone has read my book! Thought you might be interested in the following criticism of this appeal to Ockham's razor (different to the criticism I discuss in The Philosophy Files).

How do you know Ockham's razor (the principle that one should always choose the simplest of otherwise equally good explanations)is true? If the answer is: because that is what experience teaches us: the simplest explanation does usually turn out to be true, then the sceptic remain undefeated. For the sceptic will say: but the reliability of experience is precisely what the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis throws into question, so you can hardly use oit to justify Ockham's razor, and then use that to justify appeals to experience as revealing how the world really is. That would be a circular justification. Perhaps the aliens who control your virtual reality make it seem that simplest explanation usually turns out to be true, when in reality it usually turns out to be false.

happy thinking!
Stephen Law
University of London

Why is it called Ockham's razor, do you know? I've heard it mentioned before, somewhere... Thank you for taking the time to read my entry, I did enjoy your book !

Aurora
Scotland

It is named after William of Ockham (or Occam), a 14thC (I think)philosopher/theologian who came up with it.

Hi Aurora, sweet one,

you could take another approach to it. Taking your box with the light bulb as an example, I'd say it is of no interest with circuit is inside the box. As long as the box behaves as if it had the simple circuit inside it, without any indication of a more complicated circuit, you can savely assume that it is simple and that's it.

You certainly can't prove what's inside the box, but what the heck, it makes no difference to you.

Why bother with aliens, gods, religion, superstition and so on as long as there's an even more simple explanation for things. That's my attitude, and there are so many complicated things I'll have to investigate first (like how to put an end to jeallousy) before I get to the cyberspaces religion has invented.

Hmm... but is Occam's Razor based on experience or is it derived logically?

Even if it is based on logic, it doesn't say what is true, only that we should not speculate beyond our knowledge. If there is a light-sensor in the box, Occam's Razor will give the wrong answer, right? So it can't guide us to truth, only away from falsehood. The Razor cannot prove that the box contains a simple circuit, it only tells us that we have no justification for believing that it contains a light-sensor.

I am not sure if this means that Occam's Razor is generally mis-used or whether I am disagreeing with William of Occam. If the latter, at least he can't argue back!

I enjoyed 'The Philosophy Gym', btw. I am still trying to work out how I can know that the sun will rise tomorrow!

Gif

You are right, Giford!

I think the conclusion there is that Occam's razor isn't necessarily a definer of truth, only of probability. The simplest answer is /probably/ the true one. Also this theory can be used in different ways; imagine wandering around a 3d landscape in Virtual Reality - obviously whatever's drawing the landscape only needs to draw what you can see, so it can 'cut away' objects behind the viewer, on the other side of walls, etc. Keeping things simple, see?